0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
There might be some sort of more fundamental ,and totally different form of causation underlying the laws of physics themselves , such as some sort of formative causation, not necessarily that morphic resonance of Sheldrake :http://www.amazon.com/Morphic-Resonance-Nature-Formative-Causation/dp/1594773173
Here's an interesting article on Qualia if anyone is so inclined....Three Laws of Qualia -- What Neurology Tells Us about the Biological Functions of Consciousness, Qualia and the Selfby V. S. Ramachandran , William Hirstein
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 21/11/2013 19:03:55There might be some sort of more fundamental ,and totally different form of causation underlying the laws of physics themselves , such as some sort of formative causation, not necessarily that morphic resonance of Sheldrake :http://www.amazon.com/Morphic-Resonance-Nature-Formative-Causation/dp/1594773173And there might be a rhinoceros living in my basement, but if I have no evidence that there is, why would I keep running down stairs to check?If you require science to prove the non-existence of things for which it has no evidence, you are requiring it to disprove an infinite number of propositions, an infinite number of times.
I'm appalled at your laissez-faire attitude to pachyderms. I sincerely hope you don't have children. What sort of mother would leave the house without checking for rhinosceri, hippopotami and other dangerous beasts (including nonmaterial ones) in the basement? Or does your babysitter tote a gun and a bottle of holy water?
Here's an interesting article on Qualia if anyone is so inclined. (It is rather long, though.) The clinical cases provide food for thought. Bonus fun experiments - relocate your nose.Three Laws of Qualia -- What Neurology Tells Us about the Biological Functions of Consciousness, Qualia and the Selfby V. S. Ramachandran , William Hirstein http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.127.8130
That lunatic ... How lunatic ... weirdo ...pathetic
ACCEPTABLE USAGE POLICY - By registering to use this forum you agree to abide by the following regulations. 1. Keep it legalWe are all bound by law, and we cannot host material that contravenes the law. This means we cannot, amongst other things, host material that is obscene, that constitutes harassment, that promotes terrorism, that is racist, or that constitutes a breach of copyright.
2. Keep it friendlyDo not use insulting, aggressive, or provocative language.
5. Keep it a discussion•The site is not for evangelising your own pet theory.
Come on, be serious : consciousness or qualia can be explained by laws , similar to those of Newton ? haha : just in terms of physics and chemistry ?
Well, for your info : any given sane average person does experience the fact that consciousness is non-physical , and hence escapes any laws of physics .
Ramachandran ? hahah ( This scientist 's work is so interesting and fascinating that it is a complete waste that he tries to misinterpret it , just in materialistic mechanistic terms ,unfortunately enough ) , Dennett haha ...come on , be serious : those are the very embodiement of what 's really so wrong about science today = they are the core embodiement of that toxic false orthodox dogmatic materialistic secular religion in science , in the sense that the "mind is in the brain , memory is stored in the brain ..." : tragic-hilarious,in the sense that 'everything = nothing " can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry ,including the mind or consciousness .That lunatic Dennet even says that consciousness as such might not exist , that we might all be just zombies taking the illusion of consciousness for real ....
I asked you earlier about hallucinations, and how they would be generated by the immaterial consciousness, but you declined to discuss it.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 22/11/2013 17:06:49Come on, be serious : consciousness or qualia can be explained by laws , similar to those of Newton ? haha : just in terms of physics and chemistry ?Why is that so laughable? Regardless, of how you believe qualia are generated, should it be impossible to say what they do, or do not do; when they occur and when they do not? Is there no rational statement, no consistent observation, one can make about them at all?
QuoteWell, for your info : any given sane average person does experience the fact that consciousness is non-physical , and hence escapes any laws of physics .A person may perceive electricity as non-physical as well, because he cannot see electrons or voltage. Without a microscope, he cannot "experience" the microorganisms that are making him ill. Do these things exist?
QuoteRamachandran ? hahah ( This scientist 's work is so interesting and fascinating that it is a complete waste that he tries to misinterpret it , just in materialistic mechanistic terms ,unfortunately enough ) , Dennett haha ...come on , be serious : those are the very embodiement of what 's really so wrong about science today = they are the core embodiement of that toxic false orthodox dogmatic materialistic secular religion in science , in the sense that the "mind is in the brain , memory is stored in the brain ..." : tragic-hilarious,in the sense that 'everything = nothing " can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry ,including the mind or consciousness .That lunatic Dennet even says that consciousness as such might not exist , that we might all be just zombies taking the illusion of consciousness for real ....Actually, in the article, Ramachandran disagrees with Dennett on certain things, and gives some explanation why we are not unconscious zombies, or how one would not expect the results he gets in certain experiments, if we were. I'd be happy to hear your true and non-toxic, non orthodox-dogmatic-materialistic-secular, interpretation of Ramachandron's findings, and how he should have interpreted his results. I asked you earlier about hallucinations, and how they would be generated by the immaterial consciousness, but you declined to discuss it.
".... that qualia are different from other brain states in that they possess three functional characteristics, which we state in the form of ‘three laws of qualia ’ based on a loose analogy with Newton’s three laws of classical mechanics......"To try to explain the mental in terms of physics and chemistry , in terms of physical laws ,or to try to reduce the mental to just the latter is just an extension of the materialist false conception of nature .Absurd .
In that article, Ramachandran & Hirstein are saying qualia provide data for choice, are irrevocable (you can't change how they feel) and require short term memory. For example, when touching a hotplate, there is a reflex withdrawal - no choice, no memory required, no qualia involved; but shortly after, the pain quale is experienced, which allows a choice of response to be considered. This suggests qualia are generated to give meaning to the input; the meaning arises from the associations triggered by the qualia, and it is this meaning that allows the selection of appropriate response (choice). So if a quale of pain triggers associations of reward in some context, it will have a different meaning than if it triggers associations of failure, and so the response will likely be different. To be more speculative: The article also emphasises the multiple levels of feedback throughout the processing chain, so it also seems to me possible that the meaning(s) associated with a quale may modify the experienced quale through this feedback (bear in mind that a quale is not a 'thing', but just a generic label for a sensation). In other words, the same input may generate different qualia over time, depending, not just on the situational context, but also on feedback from the results of the choices made, which change the associated meaning, which in turn changes the qualia (e.g., you no longer feel that particular input as pain, or you feel it as a different sort of pain). So a particular quale is irrevocable, but not necessarily the consistent result of a particular input stimulus.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 23/11/2013 18:03:30".... that qualia are different from other brain states in that they possess three functional characteristics, which we state in the form of ‘three laws of qualia ’ based on a loose analogy with Newton’s three laws of classical mechanics......"To try to explain the mental in terms of physics and chemistry , in terms of physical laws ,or to try to reduce the mental to just the latter is just an extension of the materialist false conception of nature .Absurd .Again, there's nothing inherently materialistic about observing what qualia do or do not do, when they are present and when they are not - unless, you believe (and I suspect you do) that the immaterial has no mechanisms, follows no laws. In which case, then every conceivable experiment is invalid, or at best inconclusive. Ironically, that includes any hypothetical experiment about any aspect of the immaterial, since one would have no way of knowing how other aspects of the immaterial might influence the experiment or manifest themselves that day. Your model predicts that everything is unknowable, including itself. That's why your argument is irrational.
When science thus will realise and acknowledge the fact that reality as a whole is not just physical or material , including evolution, the mind or consciousness , and the rest , including matter itself (see modern physics regarding the latter )